[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 9, 2001)]
[Pages H6441-H6442]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the CIA has a budget of over $30 billion. The 
FBI has a budget of over $3 billion. In addition, $10 to $12 billion 
are specifically designated to fighting terrorism. Yet, with all this 
money and power, we were not warned of the events that befell us on 
September 11.
  Since the tragic attacks, our officials have located and arrested 
hundreds of suspects, frozen millions of dollars of assets and gotten 
authority to launch a military attack against the ring leaders in 
Afghanistan. It seems the war against terrorists or guerillas, if one 
really believes we are in an actual war, has so far been carried out 
satisfactorily and under current law. But the question is do we really 
need a war against the civil liberties of the American people?
  We should never casually sacrifice any of our freedoms for the sake 
of a perceived security. Most security, especially in a free society, 
is best carried out by individuals protecting their own property and 
their own lives. The founders certainly understood this and is the main 
reason we have the second amendment. We cannot have a policeman 
stationed in each of our homes to prevent burglaries, but owners with 
property with possession of a gun can easily do it. A new giant agency 
for homeland security cannot provide security, but it can severely 
undermine our liberties. This approach may well, in the long run, make 
many Americans feel less secure.
  The principle of private property ownership did not work to prevent 
the tragedies of September 11, and there is a reason for that. The 
cries have gone out that due to the failure of the airlines to protect 
us, we must nationalize every aspect of aviation security. This 
reflects a serious error in judgment and will lead us further away from 
the principle of private property ownership and toward increasing 
government dependency and control with further sacrifice of our 

                              {time}  1945

  More dollars and more Federal control over the airline industries are 
not likely to give us the security we all seek.
  All industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good 
security. They are protected not by the local police but by owners 
putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring 
identification cards to enter. All this, without any violation of 
anyone's civil liberties. And in a free society private owners have a 
right, if not an obligation, to profile if it enhances security. This 
technique of providing security through private property ownership is 
about to be rejected in its entirety for the airline industry.
  The problem was that the principle of private property was already 
undermined for the airlines by partial federalization of security by 
FAA regulations. Airports are owned by various government entities. The 
system that failed us prior to 9-11 not only was strictly controlled by 
government regulations, it specifically denied the right of owners to 
defend their property with a gun. At one time, guns were permitted on 
airlines to protect the U.S. mail. But for more than 40 years, airlines 
have not been allowed to protect human life with firearms.
  Some argue that pilots have enough to worry about flying the airplane 
and have no time to be concerned about a gun. How come drivers of 
armored vehicles can handle both? Why do we permit more protection for 
money being hauled around the country in a truck than we do for 
passengers on an airline? If government management of airline security 
has already failed us, why should we expect expanding the role of 
government in this area to be successful? One thing for sure, we can 
expect it to get very expensive and the lines to get a lot longer. The 
Government's idea of security is asking ``who packed your bag''; ``has 
the bag been with you since you packed it''; and requiring plastic 
knives to be used on all flights while taking fingernail clippers away 
from pilots.
  Pilots overwhelmingly support their right to be armed, some even 
threatening not to fly if they are not permitted to do so. This could 
be done quickly and cheaply by merely removing the prohibition against 
it, as my bill, H.R. 2896, would do. We must not forget four well-
placed guns could have prevented the entire tragedy of 9-11.

[[Page H6442]]

  This is a crucial time in our history. Our policy of foreign 
interventionism has contributed to this international crisis. How we 
define our enemies will determine how long we fight and when the war is 
over. The expense will be worth it if we make the right decisions. 
Targeting the forces of bin Laden makes sense, but invading eight to 10 
countries without a precise goal will prove to be a policy of folly, 
lasting indefinitely, growing in size and cost in terms of dollars and 
lives, and something for which most Americans will eventually grow 
  Our prayers and hopes are with our President that he continues to use 
wise judgment in accomplishing this difficult task, something he has 
been doing remarkably well under the very difficult circumstances.
  But here at home it is surely a prime responsibility of all Members 
to remain vigilant and not, out of fear and panic, sacrifice the rights 
of Americans in our effort to maximize security.
  Since the President has already done a good job in locating, 
apprehending, and de-funding those associated with the 9/11 attacks 
while using current existing laws we should not further sacrifice our 
liberties with a vague promise of providing more security. We do not 
need a giant new national agency in order to impose a concept of 
Homeland Security that challenges our civil liberties. This is an idea 
whose time has not yet come.